From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 20 16:45:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F337B401 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [207.200.153.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFCE43F3F for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:45:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 19eM7h-00022j-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:53:41 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius To: Sean Chittenden In-Reply-To: <20030720112550.GO24507@perrin.int.nxad.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Dan Langille Subject: Re: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:45:58 -0000 On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > > FreeBSD 4.8 or 5.1? > > > > > > Probably 5.1-RELEASE. > > > > I would recommend 4.8 over 5.1. Especially if you intend this to be > > a production server. 5.1 is not ready for public consumption. > > Public consumption, yes. Production consumption, no. > > 5.1 is still pretty crippled in its current state because it's not > Giant free yet. Once Giant free, however, 5.X will be much closer to > production ready and should be quicker as a result of the fine grained > locking (or so everyone hopes). The simple locking mechanism in 4.x Well, 5.1 is considerably less crippled by Giant than 4.8. Well, "crippled" is not a good description. "Impaired" is better. 5.1 SMP performance is less Giant impaired than 4.8. That's a good thing. > does have some advantages in cases and should be a consistent > performer on UP machines and under most loads.... whether or not 5.x Giant is not present in a UP kernel. At the rate things are going, in a couple of years, most people are going to using SMP, so UP is going to be less of an issue. > over takes 4.X in terms of speed, is the subject of great debate, but > many are optimistic that it will be at some point, just not at the > moment. 5.X, will however (and without much doubt), scale much better > than 4.X on multiple processor machines, though I'm not sure where > that stands at the moment in terms of being completed and should > likely be directed to current@ or questions@ instead of here. -sc Yes, 5.1 is better on multiple CPUs. So if 5.1 works for you, it is going to work faster than 4.8 on SMP. > -- > Sean Chittenden > > Tom